Daniel Engber discusses the recent overturned conviction of Anna Stubblefield, by a three-judge panel in New Jersey. He frames the scope of his article by intersecting the power dynamics of the law/legal system, scientific evidence, race, and disability. Through these lenses, Engber weighs the validity of facilitated communication (FC)—which was barred from evidence in Stubblefield's previous case—in addition to the judgments of both the trial and appellate judges. FC—the cornerstone of Stubblefield’s defense—was ruled inadmissible during the trial because New Jersey law states, “scientific test results related to “a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror” can be admitted only if the tests are generally accepted within the